Talk:Retellian escape pod
Five pictures for a one line article! Bulk it up or they'll be removed! I'm on a hunt for cluttered pages. -- Tough Little Ship 17:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Which picture should stay then? I can't imagine the article ever being big enough for two even. -- Tough Little Ship 18:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC) :I vote keep all of them (take out #3 or #4 maybe) but put them in a horizontal arrangement or maybe a --Bp 18:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC) ::I vote to delete #1, #3, and maybe #5. -- Captain Mackenzie Calhoun 02:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC) :::I would have to agree, 5 pictures is too much for a one line article. Especially as the pictures don't illustrate that much, and are pretty low resolution. I say keep 2 and 4, because it shows the inside (we don't actually see the inside of an escape pod too often in Star Trek) and 4 to show the outside. 1, 3 and 5 are too far away to get any detail. - AJ Halliwell 02:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC) ::::Support --Morder 02:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC) ::When will action be taken to remove the redundant pictures? Are there any objections to removing them? The reason I'm in such a hurry to remove some of the pictures is that I think that once there's only one or two of them remaining, the "needs attention" tag can be removed because the article itself is about as good as it can be made. Actually, right now, I vote that once the number of pictures is narrowed down to one or two that the tag be removed. --Captain Mackenzie Calhoun 15:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC) ::::: I agree there should be few images, but disagree that their removal, or rather their existence, has anything to do with the pna. --Alan 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC) :: Okay, how can the article be improved so that the pna is removed? As I wrote above, I don't think the article itself can be improved much more, but maybe I'm wrong. By the way, I don't think the multitude of images caused the pna to be placed on this article, but I do think reducing the multiplicity would remove an obstacle to getting the tag removed. -- Captain Mackenzie Calhoun 00:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::The article has already been significantly expanded since the PNA tag was added more than 2 years ago. You know what? All too often, the PNA tag, as written, contains a lie: "Information regarding expansion requirements may be found on the article's talk page." Um, you know what? No. The talk page does NOT contain Enzo Aquarius's "expansion requirements". I think this article can't be expanded any more without making stuff up, and that it's time for the tag to go. I also think that anyone who uses this tag should be required to Talk: about it, or the tag should be removed. How is anyone else supposed to know what some hit-and-run tagger thinks is missing if they don't speak up? How do tags stay for years at a time when no conditions for satisfying the "expansion requirements" are known? Do we expect the person who added the tag to follow up? I don't, and with that in mind I think that either the person who added the tag and the date the tag is added should be part of the tag, OR, that tags with NO corresponding Talk: page topic should be deleted routinely. TribbleFurSuit 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)